57% of Democrats View Socialism Positively

It's unfortunate, but unsurprising. Capitalism has failed millions of people in the countries where it's practiced due to corrupting elements. While I believe it's the best system based on the conditions of today, I understand why others look to something that (seemingly) looks like it would be a better alternative.

Most people base their views on their personal experiences, and most have never seen how bad 'socialism' can get without certain conditions, but they do see what Capitalism was supposed to give them (The American Dream) and it hasn't.

 

Of course it does

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs is marxist dogma straight from lenin himself

Of course I understand that the gulags were the exception to the rule because the inmates there were expected to work till they died

 

You are playing the semantic game again... and I did not say Bucky's statement was incorrect .. I merely stated that there was more to Marxism than state ownership.

I know .. you want to distinguish between "the collective" and "the state" but the two are functionally the same. I am talking about systems that actually exist - and have a chance of existing - and not some ideological construct.

 

Maybe the Canadian Dream is dead or never existed to begin with

But the American Dream is alive for those who do not fall prey to the corrupting influence of the wipe-every-nose liberal welfare state

 

What makes you think I haven't tried to find at least one single source that supports your Soviet Union became Communist in order to
become Socialists nonsense? It's bizarro revisionism. It's not even that as you are claiming something supported by no other thinker, historian or expert of any sort.

You think your indignant defensive response legitimizes your fantastic claim? It only highlights how ridiculous it all is.

 

That does not mean a belief in "something for nothing"... and you left out the state ownership of most resources and means of production part.

Since Dem's in general do not believe in this - your characterization is false.

If you are talking "wealth redistribution" - which again is a function of Marxism/Socialism - Republicans love wealth redistribution even more than the Dems.

 

No, but I gave you the facts. It's up to you to understand or to continue as you wish.

 

That's not what I said. I don't communicate in such confused and misleading language.

 

What a crock of nonsense this is. The American Dream is free and fair markets. Republicans hate free and fair markets. They love Oligopolies, anti competitive practices, price fixing, and other things which bastardize free and fair markets such as Regulations and Tax law which burdens the little buy and favors the Oligopolies.

 

I have never denied those facts... You just get way too stuck into conceptual semantics and lack focus on systems that actually exist. Every time you have this conversation you go down this rabbit hole from which no meaningful or practical ideology or social change can be derived.

 

So because we (and every other society) at one point had slavery we should disregard every policy we ever had and allow you brilliant social engineers on the left to remake our entire civilization in your image? We needed tens of millions of illegal alien Mexicans because we had slavery 160 years ago? Sounds totally legit.

Who is calling for “unfettered capitalism”? Sounds like another hysterical buzz word.

You have a fundamental ignorance on what the country was designed to be, which makes sense, since your roots in the country can only be traced back to the 1960s, and the Soviet Union before that.

 

Then why not say that when I originally pointed out your amazingly obtuse claim?
You fail even at saving face, which you have not done, by the way. You've only doubled down on a ridiculous statement of yours.

 

Well, "universal health care" is a broad term that can include any number of things, including the socialist variety I spoke of earlier.

Right now I'm spending less without the added expense of getting government involved in providing UHC, in any and every sense of the word, to everyone. Furthermore, I am ideologically opposed to it because there is nothing conservative, pro-free market and constitution-loving about "universal health care".

Evidently, you must be a "cafeteria conservative".

 

Oh man.. You really don't know.

Universal healthcare is not socialism.. Medicare is successful, less expensive and is funded by payroll taxes.

 

Dems are certainly working toward something for nothing

Have you ever heard of a guranteed minimum income?

 

And again you can not manage to make a post without name calling. And we are not spending less .. we spend way more per person than every other first world nation - all who have Universal Healthcare - and getting less.

You favor more Gov't spending rather than less - Don't transfer your RINO tendencies onto me.

 

Socialism applies to an economy only whereas Democratic Socialism includes politics and economics just like Communism accept the people are led to believe they have control over both. That's how Chavez came to power in Venezuela with the support of the people. And now we know the rest of the story in Venezuela.

 

Marxism is not "something for nothing". Call Dem's "welfare lovers" if you like but this is not Marxism.

If we use "wealth redistribution" as the definition of socialism (as most people do) .. Republicans are raging socialists. FULL STOP.

 

The republican establishment in washington - never trumpers - do qualify as free market wackos

In that sense they are allies with the dems

trump voters want fair trade that does not lower the wages of American workers

 

Given the level of confusion we see in regard to this subject, combined with the growing interest in socialism, albeit with the same confusion about what it is, I consider it imperative to be as precise and clear as possible. Otherwise we are just adding to the confusion and helping to perpetuate it.

 

Marx envisioned equal distribution of wealth

And that is the message the frauds in washington are peddling to potential democrat voters

 

Single Payer Private delivery is not socialized medicine.. The VA Hospital system is socialized medicine.

Americans may be too ignorant to ever get a handle of healthcare.

 

"You brilliant social engineers"… So, now I'm a social engineer, simply because I believe in the Constitutional right of equality under the law? Or is it because you can't find a citation to back up the assertion you made earlier?

I have not mentioned anything about a Mexican in this thread, so the rest is a hyperbolic straw man.

No one has called for unfettered capitalism. What I have tried to explain is that capitalism has to be controlled because it negatively impacts human beings, whom in this country have rights, and it is the government's obligation to protect those rights… thus we get socialistic institutions that balance the negative impact of capitalism, like Social Security.

You calling me ignorant on what this country is designed to be is richly ironic, since I've cited the Constitution.

I doubt you're interested, but my roots in this country extend back to 1605, and from England and France.

 

In terms of socialism, there's no difference between the two.

 

The problem is that you don't hear, and you try too hard to confuse things to provide yourself an opportunity to attack. If I am unclear you have the right and opportunity to ask for clarification instead of doubling-down on confusion and conflict.